Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 35 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2
Set Bookmark
Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 6:52pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Saints of Imperfection

True, we knew everything we needed to know about the Voyager crew by episode 2. Sadly, any lasting character development stopped there.

We didn’t know much of anything about Garak until the end of -season- 2, and the rest is history.
Set Bookmark
Victor Good
Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: Peak Performance

so Many comments to scroll down thru just to get to the comments box and post my own 2 sense:
Episode was entertaining but the entire plot was contrived...
Why are they using an 80 yr old ship to train with? They should ne traing against Borg type ships and strategy as that is their clear and present threat as per Picard's own words in this episode. 2ND THE entire method of using laser optical hits and computers to simulate the battle seems to be used entirely for plot reasons - Enterprise takes a hit by the ferengi ship fusing their phasers into optic mode. Why all this work and use of the Hathaway when they have a perfectly good hokodeck to simulate the bridge of ANY ship - old federation vessel to another galaxy class ship so its a fair fight and solely about skill, ora Borg cube so the crew gets applicable combat practice. Holodecks are so under utilized except to film low budget, past period settings (Dickson hill, P.I) Sherlock Holmes, etc. Never do we see battle practice with ships and we know its possible- see episode RELICS where Scotty uses the holodeck to recreate the bridge of Enterprise A. Worf uses it ofte. to train his martial arts. Yet we never see it used for drills and fleet battle practice.
Set Bookmark
Anton Nikolaievich
Mon, Oct 1, 2018, 12:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Identity Crisis


The reason that Miss Universe only has competitors from Earth in it is because every living being in the universe lives on Earth. Aliens, like everything on Star Trek, are just fiction. It is bizarre to me how so many people on this website cannot seem to grasp that Star Trek is just a television programmec none of this actually happened or ever will happen, it is possible to enjoy a television programme without having a delusion that it is real.
Set Bookmark
Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 4:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S2: Basics, Part I

On this episode you can see how the writers forgot that the voyager crew was composed of various species that are normally speaking different dialects, yet when taken to the planet and com-badges removed (which most likely hold part of the universal translator) they can easily communicate with each other in good old universal English. Even if most of the crew spoke English, how does Neelix whose learning curve is a bit lower learned and master the English language in such a short time
Set Bookmark
Sat, Jun 2, 2018, 12:56pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Repression

B&B should have been given credit for re-introducing Bajorans in a big way - there was no real need to try it 2 years after DS9 ended, but they tried it anyway!
Set Bookmark
Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 2:52pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S1: Captive Pursuit

Just watching DS9 for the first time. I am a B5 fan so this should be my thing. Typical old school ST but entertaining none the less...6/10 for me . Is it true that seasons 6 and 7 of DS9 are great viewing. I dont know how DS9 ends but season 5 of B5 was not good,does DS9 have a quality last season? Any replies most welcome.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 8:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S1: Court Martial

I love that during the final fight in Engineering that Finney grabs a conveniently located GIANT WRENCH to attack Kirk with. First of all, Scotty did not stow tools when done? Secondly, what the heck on a WARP DRIVE do you use such a tool for?
Set Bookmark
Mon, Mar 13, 2017, 7:44pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One

*Calls college graduate statistics into question for measure of intelligence then asks for tennis performance instead."

Set Bookmark
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 3:58am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: I, Borg

Why is it that when genocide is talked about in pop culture, The Jewish Holocaust gets brought up?

I mean it makes sense to equate one fictional genocide with another but cmon. Every single time.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Sep 23, 2014, 5:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: Tacking into the Wind

I've been watching a lot of ds9 lately so today I just decided to watch the two parter Redemption episodes of TNG. At the end of the first ep Worf and Gowron are trying to convince Picard and the federation in general to help them in what is a civil war. Picard gives a lecture on non interference. I immediately thought of how different Sisko is. Sisko doesn't care about these principles. He wants to win at any cost. If that means assassinating a leader to install someone who will go along with the federation then so be it. I have to admit ds9 is awesome and I like how dark and gritty it is BUT I have to say I wish he was like Picard. Picard would have stood by federation policy and found a way around Gowron. I also wish Worf had learned some of these lessons from Picard instead of just agreeing with Sisko. As interesting as Sisko is it's just upsetting that the other captains are principled starfleet officers throughout their lives. Then you have Sisko who is forever floating around in the wormhole with these aliens. The writers should never had made him a wormhole alien. They should have ended the series with Bajor entering the federation and Sisko remaining in starfleet.
Set Bookmark
Victoria G
Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 4:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Drive

This reminds me of The Great Race, when Tony Curtis stopped his car just before the Eiffel Tower to propose to Natalie Wood. Except then it did not save their lives.
Set Bookmark
Victoria G
Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 10:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Muse

People may not realize that this episode is taken straight from Greek theater. Many will recognize the chorus and the masks, but there are three types of plot twists that are included. Two were described by Aristotle – the reversal of fortune (Peripeteia) and the moment of recognition (Anagnorisis). Then there is the Deus ex Machina at the end.
Set Bookmark
Daniel Lebovic
Wed, Jun 5, 2013, 1:47am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Hi Nic - I'm not sure Matt is "taking things personally." I am not a mind-reader. Moreover, a lot of the posters have made denuciatory and declamatory one-liners that reflect hatred of and venom toward this movie (hate is never palatable, but it is always at its least palatable when it is unsupported by facts or reasoning) contrasted with Matt's specific, thoughtful and sober analysis. I eagerly await some of those to whom Matt responded in detail to reply back to him. I think it is always easier to criticize than to defend, because human beings are hard-wired that way (as a friend once told me, when I was childishly looking for a compliment, "People don't generally compliment you on routine things well-done. You will likely be criticized for a routine mistake.")

I spoke to the following point in 2009, and I too was in effect told to calm down: for those conversant in Star Trek history, no doubt you remember: Gene Roddenberry did not conceive of TOS as a drama shorn of interpersonal conflict where characters struggled to reach a utopian ideal. The characters in the original series routinely argued with each other. That reflects reality, in any century, as far as human beings are concerned. Twenty years down the line or so, when TNG came out Roddenberry attempted to reinvent what Star Trek "meant: lack of interpersonal conflict, Starfleet as not a military organization/organization heavily involved in "police actions" (TOS' Enterprise was involved in a number of such actions, and was in general used for militaristic purposes - even if defensive - more than the TNG Enterprise was, I think); Starfleet as an organization where traitors are hard to find. Roddenberry was shown Star Trek VI shortly before his death, and complained that the movie was too "militaristic."

If the CREATOR of Star Trek can change his mind about what Star Trek is or should be about, I find it impossible to understand how fans can attempt to impose a definition of what Star Trek "is." Part of the fun of discussing "Trek" and watching it over the years, for me, anyway, has been discussing what has made Star Trek so successful - and when I talk to different people about this, different people have different opinions. These people support their opinions with facts, and are not denigrated by those who claim that their actualization of "Trek" is and should be the only one.

Another point: While STID will probably not outgross its predecessor, it will, it appears, have a higher rate of return on its investment than most of the other Trek films have had. A major reason why the STID and its immediate predecessor fared so well is because non-fans saw these movies - a fair number of non-fans. STID received a Cinema Score rating of "A," which means a lot of non-fans also LIKED the movie. Evidently they were able to follow it. Fandom in days gone by often would hold the future of Trek in its hands: if the fan base did not show up to see Star Trek VI after V failed critically and commercially, perhaps there would have been no more movies.... No two CONSECUTIVE movies between Star Trek 1 and 10 were bombs, box-office wise, and the fans can be thanked for that. Surely, fans probably now realize that their input, and catering to their tastes, is less important to Paramount than it used to be, since the Star Trek movies, quite arguably, can exist as a going concern without having to rely ONLY on the fans.

Some people no doubt abhor this - i.e. they now believe "the only reason the movies can now survive is because they have been dumbed down for a mass audience. That is not an "accomplishment." (Perhaps people abhorring this explains some of the bile directed at this movie). IMHO, not one of the first ten Star Trek movies appealed primarily to the intellect. (Anyone who thinks otherwise, please share your thoughts). Some people no doubt abhor how this movie contains more special effects, more action, more cuts, more editing generally, than its predecessors. These items are value-neutral, though. They do not make a film better or worse.

One poster quoted Roger Ebert's review of "North" (1994), which contained a line to the effect of "I hated hated hated hated.. this movie." The late Ebert was also fond of saying something else: A movie is not what it is about, but how it is about it. If someone wants to condemn STID for being nothing more than an action picture, that person is condemning what the movie is about (and is also attempting to short-circuit legitimate debate - after all, to paraphrase something else Ebert once said, "Once you have called a movie an action movie, what else is there left to say about it?" The actual line Ebert used is, "Once you have called someone a Feminazi, what else is there to say about such a person?) rather than how it is about it. STID, while it is far from being a perfect movie, is, I think, an action/adventure movie that earns its thrills/laughs and some of the tears it attempts to make drop, because it goes about its story in an entertaining way, with excellent production values and a great cast that puts its own spin on things, and a script that, if criticized solely on the basis of what is on the page, moves us along from a series of exciting events to another, while even allowing for a little moral commentary that Roddenberry trying to reinvent Roddenberry Prime would have approved of (the militarism here was expressly singled out as leading Starfleet in a dangerous direction). Oh, and the screenplay does not spell things out for us (some people call that shoddy writing; reasonable people can disagree). That offends some, no doubt. One person complained that Admiral Marcus' motivation was not explained. Actually, it was (the destruction of Vulcan was, he claimed, an event that underscored the need for Starfleet to be more "proactive" against threats).

What I disagree with is not so much the reviews on this post that announce how bad this movie is, but rather the fact that a number of these reviews seem to be using, as evaluative measures, narrow, rigged criteria (i.e. "is this movie a Star Trek movie?") that when used will automatically result in this movie not "measuring up."
Set Bookmark
Wed, Oct 3, 2012, 3:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: It's Only a Paper Moon

Thank you, Kristen. I was thinking the same thing. And thank you, Nog.
Set Bookmark
Victor Leon
Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:02am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Precious Cargo

Jammer...really? Why again was it bad? You must be a TOTAL nerd to not appreciate a little romance and fun. I admit, Enterprise episodes were pretty bad, but I actually liked this one. Watching T'Pol play bad magistrate was pretty funny, and seeing a beautiful woman like Padme was fabulous (oh yeah and I'm a gay trekker). I am watching episodes on Netflix and this has in fact become the highlight of Season 2 so far (I'm on episode 12 now). Season 2 is sucking so bad..the one I kinda liked was Carbon Creek and it was because of the pathos of it.
Also that you for reminding me of ST VOY Threshold episode, I just saw it a few weeks ago and it was terrible...again. I thought maybe it might have remembered it differently. haha
Set Bookmark
Mon, Dec 5, 2011, 6:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S4: Unforgettable

You'd think they'd have 2 weeks of jacked up log entries if a virus deleted all records of her being there. Does the virus forge in the Voyager crew's own words an alibi for what else they could've been doing instead of dealing with Kellin?
Set Bookmark
Mon, Nov 21, 2011, 5:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Macrocosm

Aside from one Macrovirus bomb not being thorough enough, a good episode. It's nice to see an enemy that isn't just another humanoid.
Set Bookmark
vic fontaine
Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 3:02am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: His Way

This was the beginning of the end for DS9. WIthout a doubt my least favorite episode. It's like one of the producers got a huge hard on for lame lounge music and decided to whip his dick out in public to force everyone to not only look at it, but take a big whiff.

This is what happens when Hollywood douchebags get too much power, they can impose their personal fantasies on everyone else. Ira Behr is an idiot, and this more than dissolves and respect I had for the man's previous work.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 2:39am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Valiant

Initially I found myself wanting to type a long winded comment about why this episode was so terrible, but after reading all the comments I'll just summarize;

This episode SUCKED!!!!!!
Set Bookmark
Daniel Lebovic
Wed, Jun 10, 2009, 11:24am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek (2009)

"Vulgarity is not as destructive to an artist as snobbery is." - Pauline Kael

Someone who "understands what science fiction is" would never call it "sci-fi," as a recent poster did. Of course, this assertion is just that - an assertion - an opinion. Again, no one has a definitional monopoly on what "Star Trek" is, or what "Star Trek is," or, as Kael's quote indicates, what a "good movie" is.
Set Bookmark
Daniel Lebovic
Tue, Jun 2, 2009, 1:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek (2009)

I probably should further note that I wouldn't under most circumstance TELL someone to lighten up - as if I were trying to command them, because I would properly be seen as someone who believed he and he alone had the power to determine what emotional responses to something are proper.

Then again, more than a few comments on this board are made by people with apparently the same mindset - "THIS is what Star Trek should be/is, and the resultant reaction must be X."

Star Trek fans pride themselves on tolerance, but I begin to wonder if that is true when it comes to the issue of respecting others' opinions on Star Trek itself. I may disagree with someone, but I'll give you my reason - my opinion - not my "fact" - as part of my argument.
Set Bookmark
Daniel Lebovic
Tue, Jun 2, 2009, 12:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek (2009)

Roland K,

I'm not "coming down hard" on anyone. I am merely wondering why the crtieria for judging a Star Trek movie differ among fans, and for any given fan with respect to the 11 movies.

Scientific plausibility counts, when some fans want it to. It doesn't, when some fans don't.

It's important for Star Trek to have "weighty Star Trek issues" when the issue on screen is one the fan likes; not so much when the fan dislikes it.

I am coming down on the mindset that says, "This (heavy-handed philosophizing, dull speeches, what have you) is what Star Trek is, I'm right, you're wrong," and on the mindset some fans have that says "Either the movie has to cater to my (indiscernable and capricious) whims or it is not a good movie." I am coming down on the mindset that says, "X is what makes for a great Star Trek film, and if X is not there, it's bad." I'm coming down on the mindset that says that if a filmmaker does not follow X, he has not just made a bad Star Trek movie, but a bad MOVIE.

In practically none of these comments have I read criticism (or praise, for that matter) of this film AS A PIECE OF CINEMA. You know, things like, "the camerawork was terrible; the scene was poorly paced; the humor was out of touch; the movie went on too long." Guess one has no time for this when there's too much mental masturbatory typewriting to be had about whether this movie is "a good Star Trek movie."

What I'm saying is, I am humble enough to say that I don't know what a good "Star Trek" movie is, so I can't say if this movie was a great Star Trek movie. Art ultimately must be judged, in some sense, on its own four corners, and it's a pity that the commentators seem to be treating continuity, adherence to canon, or what have you, as virtues (or vices, as most people here seem to be), instead of mere attributes, which they are not. (As an aside, I find that people's stating, AS FACT, what Star Trek "is" about, and then judging the movie on this basis alone, is presumptuous. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts." I should add that when your facts are not facts but rather opinions, you are (one is) under the false guise of objectivity, criticizing in a manner no more or less valid than anyone else (i.e. someone who realizes his opinions are not facts) does.

I guess I am biased myself... I was a movie critic back in college and law school days where I saw my stuff published... No one ever "told me" the following rule, but when I wrote a review, even of a film that was made "for the fans only" (a fact, by the way, that is also neither vice nor virtue), I asked myself three mental questions before I wrote it, and then asked myself the same three questions afterwards to make sure I had answered them. 1) What is the movie about? 2)Would you recommend it? 3) Why, or why not? In answering each question, I tried to use ordinary terms that a person with no knowledge of the movie could relate to, so that they could (hopefully) after reading the review be in a better position to judge whether the movie was worth their $10.00. The reviews were written in such a way as to be understood, and (hopefully) be helpful to everyone.

I understand these are not the criteria used at a site like this, but I've also found that focusing on a review with these questions in mind allows me to avoid going off on tangents, and to minimize the introduction of personal prejudice into a review, for surely the reader didn't/shouldn't/couldn't care about these things.
They shouldn't care about what I think the movie officially "SHOULD" have been about, or about my criticism over things that were not in the movie (you cannot criticize what's not there; I've always found it best to criticize what's actually on the screen. This is easy to do, if one permits oneself to do it).

Now, on this forum, every comment is personal-prejudice laden, a result of all of us having an idea as to what "Star Trek" is, was, or should be. I submit that singly focusing on this question and having the answer dictate whether this movie was a GOOD MOVIE (since there is no correct answer, or even "correct opinion" as to what a good "Star Trek" movie) does a disservice to movies in general.


Jammer gave the movie three stars out of four. Three out of four. Don't you think you're being excessive? You're taking it way out of proportion. I think you're coming down on Jammer a lot harder than he supposedly came down on this movie."
Set Bookmark
Daniel Lebovic
Sun, May 31, 2009, 3:48am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek (2009)

Thank you Simon B!

The Onion's piece on how Trekkers ripped this movie apart as "fun and watchable" seems all the funnier (or sadder) after reading some of the comments here. This movie has scored an average of 83/100 on, a 95% fresh on, has clearly been seen by non-Trek fans, given how much money it has made (which can only lead to the inescapable conclusion that some people out there, if not the posters here, appreciate the value of entertainment), and from reading these reviews, one gets the impression it was as bad as Star Trek The Motion Picture (which, of course, Jammer, you gave 3 stars to as well).

Really, people, you fans, like me who know Star Trek so well, were the BEST - the VERY BEST episodes really about exploring heavy dramatic and moral themes? If you go back, cataloguing through the different series, analyzing the quality of the "message" shows, the surprising (not so surprising, actually, but again, fanboys exist to criticize what they claim to love, not to appreciate how well a movie was made on its own terms - and the terms of this movie were that of an action-adventure film, like #8, and on those terms, like # 8, it worked quite well) thing is that a lot of them were quite heavy-handed, even embarrassing. "A Private Little War," "Arena" (to you, Jammer, anyway), "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," TNG's "Symbiosis," "The Outcast," DS9's "A Man Alone," Voyager's "Stigma," and so forth - not sure how many of you would consider these episodes great television, but apparently they're great "Trek" (a term that I must note no one has a definitional or any other kind of monopoly on) because they reflect the myth GR created about his own show.

In fact, he pitched the show (and on that basis, the network bought it) as a "Wagon Train to the Stars," not a "let's couch every pressing issue of the day in futuristic metaphor and have a world where everyone gets along with each other - with respect to the latter remark, do any of you really believe that is what the original "Trek" was about, given it was the only one where characters argued with each other?

Jammer, you began this review by saying you didn't know what Star Trek was about, but then the criticism of the movie definitely suggested that it "used to" be about something (i.e. philosophy). Why does it have to be about one thing, and what does it matter what it is about, as long as the story it tells is one that is told well?

Star Trek has, obviously,in fact, been many things (which begs the question of why someone would beg the question: "What is it about?") - action, dorm-room philosophizing, character, theme, issue-exploring, and so forth.

This movie chose to focus on some of those elements and not others, and should not be criticized for something it did not do, especially when past movies were assuredly not criticized by some of the people here in that manner.

Oh, and by the way, for those of you who didn't make up your mind to pigeonhole the movie before it came out, if only to smugly state "Q.E.D." when it was over, the movie was very much (the point is certainly debatable) about character (apparently, because it did not show the characters interacting with each other in a certain manner that we were used to, it's "Bad" character, or "out of character," though), and as far as the philosophizing goes, did you really want to hear another five-minute speech from Picard that would have stopped the movie dead in its tracks? The HUMANITY of Star Trek - one thing that I do believe has made it so appealing to people whether that is because what they think it is about, or whether that it is because they SHOULD think it was about because someone told them that's what GR said it was about, was most certainly on display: I will give a mere three-word example: Old Spock's final line "thrusters on full." Notice carefully how Nimoy delivers the line. With a tinge of optimism, a tinge of sadness, a little sense of awe, and a little sense of reverence. The young Kirk in this movie saves the day not because he is William Shatner because he has faith in and respects that and those which have come before (albeit from the future) him. The movie also subtly - without bopping us on the head - is getting at something quite special: that at the end of the day, after all of the time travel and black holes and red matter and planet destructions have played themselves out, the best hope for mankind is still.... manking. Oh, and it also (merely by depicting it - remember, good drama need not make its point by shouting out that it is making a point - Flaubert once complained of Uncle Tom's Cabin, "Why is the author constantly railing against slavery? Just depict it, that's enough) depicts that torture will still not work, 300 years from now. And the movie had so many neat little things going on around the edges of the frame - every penny of the biggest budget given to a Star Trek movie is up there, we even see some of the male characters wearing wedding rings, Abrams' direction (apparently noted by no one here, but cheered and applauded by the sold-out crowd I saw the movie with on the first night) of the opening ten minutes combined emotional resonance with suspense and action to produce as compelling a ten-minute sequence as any in a Star Trek film - that apparently hardcore fans have a reason to be upset. After all, they think they "own" Star Trek and whatever they think on any given day they wake up it happens to be about.

Therefore, I guess, Lord save us from a movie that tries to simply entertain people - fans and non-fans, and does a great job of doing it. Go on, keep blasting the movie for being fun and watchable, and for, dare I say it, almost cool.

After all, that last adjective is no doubt almost the most blasphemous of all. It's what caused this movie to be such a great success, and it's what will ensure that a sequel will be made, for which no doubt so many of you are already are sharpening your knives already!

You guys can all enjoy being walking examples of the inverse of the (sensible) theory that good ideas are better than non-ideas, while I can go and be entertained again. In grand fashion.

That way, to hell with no-win scenarios, we all win!
Set Bookmark
Daniel Lebovic
Thu, May 21, 2009, 5:18pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Regeneration

I must dissent from what these posters have to say.

In First Contact, the Borg Sphere arrives (as it travels backwards in time) on Earth BEFORE the Enterprise does. What (as the story itself tells us) is the pivotal event that the Borg seek to change, and is therefore, the event, if they are thwarted in their attempt to change it, that will allow the "proper" timeline to resume? The making of first contact. They are thwarted in this effort (they are unable to destroy the Phoenix, or kill Zefram Cochrane). But, the damage they DID inflict on Earth (i.e. the firing that led Lily to cry, "It's the ECON" DID really "happen" - that event was not a "it never really happened because the Borg were ultimately thwarted" event. It happened beacuse the Enterprise could and did, necessarily, restore history, once (and only once) it actually entered the 21st Century. (Contrast this with Star Trek XI, where the timeline was altered FROM THE FIRST FRAME OF THE FILM). Jammer's final paragraph (the one before "Smile, wink, nod") is completely accurate (just as is Spock's like in Star Trek XI, "The reason you aren't familiar with transwarp beaming, Mr. Scott, is that you've yet to come up with the equation for it." At the end of First Contact the ship is restored to the post-TNG episode era. "Q-Who" however, was DURING that era, so how could the characters in that episode have knowlege that history had been restored (i.e. that a force known as the Borg tried to invade Earth but failed) when, as of the stardate of that episode, the invasion (which began after Q-Who) had not yet occurred?
I mean, not to be disrespectful to anyone, but I think there's a clear answer (given how Star Trek treats time-travel stories and the implications of time travel - and it treats the implications consistently across episodes, shows and movies) as to whether any continuity was violated. I happen to think that the answer is "yes," and am not sure why others think "no." Also, remember the final shot of "Time's Arrow, Part II?" If I remember correctly, it was of Data's severed head.
Set Bookmark
Daniel Lebovic
Thu, May 14, 2009, 5:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Insurrection

The "pissed-off" poster's comments are well-taken.

While we don't know what would have happened had the Ba'ku been ASKED by the Federation to voluntarily relocate (the Federation could simply have told the Son'a, "Even though you have the technology, the planet is a Federation protectorate, so we don't have to entertain your ideas of forced relocation), the events depicted at the end of the film suggest an answer:

The last portion of the film reveals that the Ba'ku, whom we have been told are peaceful people who do not believe in using state-of-the-art technology, nonetheless used that technology in the service of exiling those with whom they had a disagreement. The Ba'ku state that the Son'a tried to "take over the colony." Even if this was done by force, two wrongs do not make a right.
The Ba'ku behavior, thus, gives one reasonable grounds to think (albeit after the fact) that had they been simply beeen asked to do soemthing for the Federation and perhaps the rest of the quadrant (with an admitted sacrifice),they would have refused. This did not justify the attempt to remove the Ba'ku by force, but I would have enjoyed a dialogue scene where, even after it was noted the Ba'ku were asked, we actually would get to the nitty-gritty of the reasons behind the Ba'ku refusal. Would leaving really destroy their culture? Would it really destroy them, as Picard speechified?

If we view the film through this alternative lens - through skepticism rather than Picard's presumed moral perfection- it becomes clear that it was not Admiral Dougherty who brought the Federation (not willingly, anyway) into a blood feud; the Federation was brought in because the Ba'ku welcomed their aid while hiding their true reason for wanting the aid (to again fend off a sub-section of their race). And of course, the Ba'ku hardly minded when Starfleet's advanced technology was used to intervene on their behalf.

If I didn't know better, I'd think that the filmmakers, one day, sat down and came up with a premise, "Hey! Let's have Picard risk everything in fighting the good fight to protect the rights of a minority," but once they had to plot that theme out-after they introduced the element of the Ba'ku planet possessing life-altering properties that the Ba'ku were happy to keep all to themselves (just....because), the self-righteousness began to seem absurd, but, having deadlines to meet, the filmmmakers continued to pursue the theme of persecution to the point where we were left with a perverse moral: every party (the Son'a, the Ba'ku and the Federaton) in this film acted from selfish purposes, but only the Ba'ku - the disingeuous hoarders - came off looking like the good guy. Self-righteousness is its own virtue and reward, the film tells us, without regard to what occurs outside of the microcosm of the boxed-in plot and the Ba'ku mindset.
Next ►Page 1 of 2
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.